intra-mo catalyst/literal Book of Abraham fight on the other board

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Someone more clever than I has given this phenomenon a name, where some mopologist takes on a criticism, comes up with his or her own explanation which they think addresses the criticism but which also shifts the claims of the church to a more defensible position, and then retroactively declares that the Mormons have always believed this way. Anyone think of the better term for this?

Shell-game Mopoligetics

[_Buffalo]

No one in my extended family, cousins, uncles, parents, grandparents, nephews etc knows it. They are all super active in the church (Bishops, stake presidents etc).
This apologetic shell game is nonsense and also dishonest.

What Joseph Smith claimed, turns out to not be true. Period.

With a couple of exceptions, I don't have such hotshot church leaders in my family, so I'm not in the same league as your exceptional anonymous self.

But the reality is that your super active church heroes are probably not avid readers of apologetic nonsense other than what might rise to the occasion in the Ensign.

But, as to what Joseph Smith "claimed as true" with respect to the Book of Abraham, I doubt even you can say exactly how he translated it. You and your anonymous friends make a lot of assumptions.

You do realize you're the only grumpy old guy who hasn't figured out the internet here who thinks that "anonymous" is some sort of insult, right?

[_SteelHead]

MY favorite current thread over there is the one on the division of Peleg. Despite Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, McKonkie, and I don't know how many others having taught it, and despite it being in multiple manuals, the majority of the posters over there are saying that it was prophets speaking as men as to a literal division of the continents. I think most of them would also throw out a global food. How many times does it have to be repeated before it is doctrine and not a prophet speaking as a man ;) ?

[_Some Schmo]

You and your anonymous friends make a lot of assumptions.

You do realize you're the only grumpy old guy who hasn't figured out the internet here who thinks that "anonymous" is some sort of insult, right?

It is quite clear that any time the yahoo brings up posters' anonymity, what he's really saying is, "I have no argument nor anything valuable to say, so out of frustration caused by impotence, I'm going to drone on about my imagined evils of anonymity, cause that's all I got."

That's how I read his nonsense, anyway.

[_Buffalo]

It is quite clear that any time the yahoo brings up posters' anonymity, what he's really saying is, "I have no argument nor anything valuable to say, so out of frustration caused by impotence, I'm going to drone on about my imagined evils of anonymity, cause that's all I got."

That's how I read his nonsense, anyway.

That's a definite possibility. Whatever the reason, his obsession is hilarious! :D

[_harmony]

But, unlike you who have become faithless and have descended to the depths of the pit by posting anonymously your rants against a major Christian faith, many of us believe the eternal truths of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and of Joseph Smith for reasons that have now eluded you.

1. Just because something is printed in a book doesn't mean it's the honest to goodness truth.

2. Just because a relative few people believe something that is written in a book or two doesn't mean it's the honest to goodness truth.

3. Just because a man makes claims about God and visions and people believe him doesn't mean his claims are true.

4. Just because the provence of a book is suspect doesn't mean the concepts of the book are not truth.

[_Dr. Shades]

Someone more clever than I has given this phenomenon a name, where some mopologist takes on a criticism, comes up with his or her own explanation which they think addresses the criticism but which also shifts the claims of the church to a more defensible position, and then retroactively declares that the Mormons have always believed this way. Anyone think of the better term for this?

You might be thinking of the term "Internet Mormonism," but that only describes a subset of beliefs, birthed by Mopologetics though they may be. In other words, it's a noun, not a verb.

You also might be thinking of the term "Gadianton Turn," wherein a Mopologist turns away from defending some aspect of Mormonism as literal and instead starts describing it as being "true" in the sense that it has value as literature or allegory, sort of like how Shakespeare's plays have value as literature even though none of them describe actual historical events. But that might not be what you're thinking of, either.

Do either of those words describe what you're thinking of?

[_Blixa]

Someone more clever than I has given this phenomenon a name, where some mopologist takes on a criticism, comes up with his or her own explanation which they think addresses the criticism but which also shifts the claims of the church to a more defensible position, and then retroactively declares that the Mormons have always believed this way. Anyone think of the better term for this?

You might be thinking of the term "Internet Mormonism," but that only describes a subset of beliefs, birthed by Mopologetics though they may be. In other words, it's a noun, not a verb.

You also might be thinking of the term "Gadianton Turn," wherein a Mopologist turns away from defending some aspect of Mormonism as literal and instead starts describing it as being "true" in the sense that it has value as literature or allegory, sort of like how Shakespeare's plays have value as literature even though none of them describe actual historical events. But that might not be what you're thinking of, either.

Do either of those words describe what you're thinking of?

The Battle of Bosworth Field, the Battle of Agincourt and the assassination of Julius Cesear were historical events as were the reigns of Richard II, Richard III, King John, and Henrys IV, V, VI and VIII.

I have no idea what "value as literature" means or what relation it bears to "truth." I suspect you mean something like the fact that philosophical and "moral" truths can be expressed in fiction.

[_Dr. Shades]

I have no idea what "value as literature" means or what relation it bears to "truth." I suspect you mean something like the fact that philosophical and "moral" truths can be expressed in fiction.

That's the apologists talking, not me. But yeah, I'm thinking that they're shooting at the latter.

[_Sethbag]

Someone more clever than I has given this phenomenon a name, where some mopologist takes on a criticism, comes up with his or her own explanation which they think addresses the criticism but which also shifts the claims of the church to a more defensible position, and then retroactively declares that the Mormons have always believed this way. Anyone think of the better term for this?

You might be thinking of the term "Internet Mormonism," but that only describes a subset of beliefs, birthed by Mopologetics though they may be. In other words, it's a noun, not a verb.

Yeah I guess what I was thinking of really was just Internet Mormonism. Internet Mormonism, at least, is what we have when this thing I mentioned has occurred numerous times involving a lot of different topics where the Chapel Mormon views are vulnerable to modern evidence.

I don't know if you ever listened to my interview/argument with my dad that I did for a Mormon Expression podcast. My dad has pretty much had to invent his own version of Mormonism. If I argue with him, he'll counter with answers based on the assumption that his version of Mormonism is the "real" one. I've asked him if he realizes the giant red flag that should be waving in his mind knowing that he was the only Mormon in the world who believes in his version of Mormonism. How likely is it in the Mormon Church that the only guy who really "gets it" is this one older ward clerk in South Jordan?

I might ask the same thing, substituting "one BYU professor of <fill in the blank with the discipline of any given mopologist at BYU>". How likely is it in the insanely hierarchical Mormon Church that the only guy who really "gets it" is some dude with a blog?

That's why the mopologists are so meaningless. They come up with their own versions of Mormonism that they think make more sense in the face of evidence, but too bad nobody got around to informing the Quorum of the Twelve, the First Presidency, the Seventy, and the overwhelming majority of the butts in the pews that they had it all wrong.